Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

Kinda makes spending money on devices to see in ever greater detail, like the LHC, or deeper and further into the universe with the LBT seem kinda pointless and expensive.

Apparently physicists just need to spend more time playing with their broccoli.

Let me know when you get your grand unifying theory worked out, that is unless you disappear into a quantum singularity.

In college I wrote programs to make 3d Lorenz attractors. Of course, using a 4.77 mhz PC with only 256k of RAM severely limited the detail I could generate. After all, I had to reserve some computer time to run my John Conway's Life program.

Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

/Or not. I really don't care, and am going to bed now.

It might be good you went to sleep. That was sounding a bit out there.

In any case take fractals the other way. Fractal mathematics is great at predicting the way things get bigger. You should look into the work in biology dealing with this crap.

Branches on a tree, the circulatory system, geneticsIts all deals with fractal mathematics.

oldebayer:the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect.

Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

/Or not. I really don't care, and am going to bed now.

It might be good you went to sleep. That was sounding a bit out there.

In any case take fractals the other way. Fractal mathematics is great at predicting the way things get bigger. You should look into the work in biology dealing with this crap.

Branches on a tree, the circulatory system, geneticsIts all deals with fractal mathematics.

Seeing these 3D models made me think of this exactly.

Too much of what resulted from simple maths turned out too organic for coincidence. It becomes fairly obvious that similar maths are at work defining the shape of matter.

oldebayer:Having said that, the fractal thing is a pretty but unrealistic conceit in a universe that is quantized. At some point, there can be nothing smaller, so the idea that these patterns can be found in endlessly smaller sizes is incorrect. More interestingly, at the point WHERE they can get no smaller, everything on the larger scale must recapitulate that of the smallest possible formation. If this is true in our universe, as it seems to be with, say, clouds and nebulae, then what we can observe is, in fact, showing us the very basic structures of all things.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think the standard rebuttal is this:As in "Pff, I guess your stupid physical universe is fine if you like blocky, grainy approximations of reality that take practically infinite memory and rendering time to look at even once. Hey, you like France? z(n+3) = z(n)e-2c. There you go, that's pretty much all there is to know about it. I saved you a trip."

semiotix:I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think the standard rebuttal is this:

Pretty much that. In math there is no smallest possible size. While in the physical world there is a smallest possible unit of space, the Planck length, in math there is no such constraint. And that math can go on forever doesn't mean it's not accurately reflecting the real world. Just that the real world has limits whereas pure math doesn't.